On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 11:25:01AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I didn't say "you don't get it." I was simply saying that because your
> beliefs are much closer to those of the FSF, it is no surprise that you
> had a better experience dealing with them.
So, what are my beliefs?
> And because your goal is to use a license to encourage contribution to
> open source projects -- something the FSF is based on and the ASF
> opposes -- it is also little surprise that they were able to help you
> and happy about accepting a modified version of your license.
Actually the FSF opposes the kind of license I am trying to write. They
accept weak copylefts only in pragmatic circumstances, but would prefer
that all software were released under a strong copyleft--which I don't
agree with.
I'm actually no closer to them than to the ASF. The only difference
for me being the level of frustration required to deal with the
two different organizations.
But it doesn't matter that I say this: you people will continue to
patronize me and tell me that you know what I believe and where I fit
into the world just as you always have. Anybody who isn't 100% living
in the ASF world is some evil outside heretic who doesn't get it and
must be a fanatic believer in something else.
The hardest thing, it seems, for ASF people to grasp is that the rest
of the world isn't as fanatical.
NOBODY should have been surprised by me releasing WM under an Apache
style license. The fact that you ALL were shows how little you
understand the rest of the world.
> Look -- we're not just in Canada, we would concievably have to deal with
> legal systems throughout the world.
Unfortunately your current license does NOT work outside the US. It
fails to disclaim conditions of fitness to purpose and merchantability
in commonwealth countries. Jason van Zyl is wide open to lawsuits because
he's using the US-centric ASF license but lives in Canada. Nobody at
the ASF seems to care about that.
I wasn't willing to expose myself to that kind of risk. Sorry.
> If you've wanted to resolve this for months, why is that license still
> vague?
The license changed on every iteration. It hasn't changed since I dual
licensed WebMacro because with the dual licensing the process ended.
> You can tell me we're wrong, and that the 0.29 license isn't dangerous
> to us. I won't argue with you -- but you're *not* going to convince me.
> And you're not going to convince others in the ASF. No one has said
> that you shouldn't use the license -- but that doesn't mean we should.
Instead of spending a few hours working out the last remaining clause
that you think is vague instead you spent man-months redeveloping WM.
So--whatever. You can say some cop out things about how you did it
because it was fun, but in the end everyone is going to know you did
it because you're fanatics.
Sure the WM parser needed to be re-implemented: it's being re-implemented
within the WM project. Nothing that you've done couldn't have been done
within one project. The reason that it wasn't was philosophical--basically
a philosophy of xenophobia.
> If you hang around the ASF projects insulting us & our practices, it
> reflects on you at least as much as on us.
Jon has been attacking my reputation in one public forum after another
for months, and I haven't really done much about it. Finally I've decided
that I need to go on the offensive to set the record straight.
Justin
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
